What follows is the story of how I became active in Mormonism. Roasted Tomatoes and Serenity Valley invited me to write it as a guest post on their old blog, Latter-day Saint Liberation Front. It was part of their “What Next” series, in which Mormons wrote about their experiences following crises of faith. It appeared on Friday, January 13th, 2006, and it was the first article I wrote for the bloggernacle under my own identity. I have (without their permission) reprinted it here in full:

I became an atheist during my sophomore year at BYU. It was late winter or early spring of 1991, some time during the beginning of my 23rd year. That was the year that I found logical positivism, a school of philosophy that has fallen into disfavor in some quasi-official sense. Nevertheless, many of its tenets are now among the key operational assumptions of philosophers and scientists of nearly every stripe.

For most atheists, gods are like unicorns: there’s no compelling reason why they can’t exist; it just so happens that they don’t. For a positivist, gods are like round squares: they’re defined in a way that renders their existence impossible. Gods are unintelligible, so everything that we say about them is either false or unintelligible. The question of belief (or faith) never arises, because there is no intelligible proposition to be believed.

Logical positivism was the last in a long series of straws that finally broke the camel’s back. As a teenager, I’d observed the regularity with which leaders trotted out guilt and authority and scriptural justification as mere crowd control measures. I’d been disabused of the sanitized, Sunday School version of church history. I’d read everything I could find about the historical issues and textual origins of the Old and New Testaments (and the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham). I found Mormonism as practiced at BYU to be somewhat offensive. I’d found nothing inspired or spiritually redeeming about the MTC, where my experience had left me feeling brow-beaten and humiliated. Plus, it’s difficult for me to feel at home among many mormons.

Furthermore, I’m just not a very spiritual person. I’ve felt the Sprit before, but I generally find myself at a loss when I’m in situations where other people purport to be having powerful spiritual feelings or experiences. There are things that come quite easily to me — I have many God-given gifts. Spirituality isn’t one of them. It’s one of the many things that makes me a work-in-progress.

Among the more cult-like propensities of Mormonism is its tendency to stigmatize individuals for their disbelief. If someone loses their “testimony,” it’s surely because they were somehow unfaithful. I’d internalized this enough to make it difficult to come out of the closet about my own disbelief. The first person that I spoke to about my disbelief in the church was my only lifelong friend. We were in his BYU student apartment at Carriage Cove. After talking around the topic for hours, I finally said, “I just don’t believe in God.” He asked the same question that I’m addressing here: “So what now?”

At that moment I didn’t know the answer. I quickly learned that there isn’t one. Everyone reading this knows that the world didn’t end in the spring of 1991. Life went on same as always. The sun still rose and set, I still skipped most of my classes, and the taco salad at the CougarEat still sat in my stomach like lead. It wasn’t that big of a deal, really. Here’s what life is like without the spiritual comfort of Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost: pretty much the same as life with the spiritual comfort of Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost.

What’s the meaning of life without deity? What’s mortality when death is the terminal destination? Bertrand Russell once said, “I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young, and I love life. But I scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is nonetheless true happiness although it must come to an end. Neither do life nor love lose their value because they are not everlasting.” That’s it in a nutshell. Once you see it, it’s obvious.

Shortly before I was thrown out of the MTC, before I had jettisoned my belief in an historical Jesus and Joseph Smith’s prophetic mission and an all-seeing Heavenly Father, I’d found an essay by Bertrand Russell entitled “A Free Man’s Worship” which resonated with me more than any scripture I’d ever read. One of the more profound passages goes like this:

The life of Man is a long march through the night, surrounded by invisible foes, tortured by weariness and pain, towards a goal that few can hope to reach, and where none may tarry long. One by one, as they march, our comrades vanish from our sight, seized by the silent orders of omnipotent Death. Very brief is the time in which we can help them, in which their happiness or misery is decided. Be it ours to shed sunshine on their path, to lighten their sorrows by the balm of sympathy, to give them the pure joy of a never-tiring affection, to strengthen failing courage, to instill faith in hours of despair. Let us not weigh in grudging scales their merits and demerits, but let us think only of their need — of the sorrows, the difficulties, perhaps the blindnesses, that make the misery of their lives; let us remember that they are fellow-sufferers in the same darkness, actors in the same tragedy as ourselves. And so, when their day is over, when their good and their evil have become eternal by the immortality of the past, be it ours to feel that, where they suffered, where they failed, no deed of ours was the cause; but wherever a spark of the divine fire kindled in their hearts, we were ready with encouragement, with sympathy, with brave words in which high courage glowed.

I know of no clearer description or explanation of the moral imperative to love our neighbor. Though many religious types would have us believe that there are no alternatives to the moral frameworks offered by religions, this passage expresses the basis for what the King James Bible calls “charity” without recourse to gods or a religion. In the end, you don’t need scriptures or deity in order to be able to understand what makes things right and wrong.

Over the decade that followed my conversion to atheism, people often asked me about my religion. I’d say, “I’m an atheist.” And then they’d ask me what religion I was raised. “Mormon,” I’d reply. And, of course, I look very Mormon. Ever after, they’d refer to me as “the Mormon.” Maybe I could have escaped this label — or at least its definite article — if I’d have lived in Utah or Idaho. In any case, Mormonism chose me as much as I chose Mormonism. So much for free agency.

After we’d had two daughters, my wife unilaterally decided to raise them in “the church.” I made some half-hearted objections and acquiesced. (In marriage, we must choose our battles.)

After the birth of our third daughter, my wife claimed that three kids were too much to handle alone at church. She insisted that I come along to help carry her bags and such. I’m not such a great husband, but I’m a real champ when it comes to carrying bags and such, so I started going. I’d already spoken with the bishop, so they knew that I was an atheist. Even so, after a few months they asked me if I’d do home teaching. I said, “sure,” and they assigned me six families. I should have seen that one coming.

A priesthood leader asked me to start reading the Book of Mormon and pray about it. I’d done this so many times before. I scoffed, “Of course I will. I’m not afraid of your prayers!” And I started reading. Much to my dismay, over the next few months I actually started to believe — really believe. It is the most confusing series of events in my entire life. Honestly, in some ways it was nearly as hard for me to announce my belief as it had been to renounce it years earlier.

The next year, our family got sealed in the temple. Our 4th daughter was born in covenant. To this day, it sometimes strikes me as the strangest thing.

Perhaps I’ve simply reverted to the fables I was taught in the nursery after experiencing a rude awakening. It’s not like anything has happened to me that is unprecedented or outside of the capability of science to explain. At the bottom of it, I’m pursuing Mormonism for the same reason I pursued atheism: I feel it’s the right thing to do.

Mormon doctrine dictates that my move to atheism was a mistake. This doesn’t mean that everything I did when I was an atheist was a mistake. While an atheist, I started a family and a career, and I grew as an individual. But it does mean that I would have grown more if my life hadn’t taken that detour through atheism. I can accept that. After all, I’m a poor failing sinner.

I still don’t know where I fit into Mormonism or exactly how repentance works. Maybe I’m starting where I left off. Maybe I’m like Oliver Cowdery, who after years of inactivity came back to find that the church had (in some sense) passed him by.

In many ways, I’m a fairly conventional Mormon. I believe that Joseph Smith translated the Golden Plates, that he restored God’s authority on earth, that God’s authority is held by our prophet today, that this authority is manifest in the hierarchy of our church, that our ordinances are uniquely sacred and efficacious. But in some other areas, my beliefs are all over the map. I’m still a logical positivist, albeit a fairly confused one. Though I believe in the historicity of The Book of Mormon, I’ve set aside my questions regarding the scriptural authority of the New Testament or how the function “x is a god” is satisfied. In fact, I’ve set aside a whole lot of questions. Maybe I’ll figure them out later. In the meantime, I do believe, and I struggle to serve faithfully, to keep the commandments, and to believe more strongly.

I am not a doubting Mormon. I’m just one that doesn’t have a lot of answers. The scriptures depict Christ saying that we should all be like little children. I don’t know what to make of this, except that we need to be comfortable being bewildered much of the time. In this one area, I’m absolutely confident of my faithfulness: I am bewildered much of the time.

DKL, I somehow find your path from faith to disbelief and back to faith to be affirming. I haven’t traveled the same path – but it’s interesting to me how being a supportive husband to your wife brought you back into church activity and then into belief.

I once hometaught a woman who was a golf widow. My father and I hometaught her for years. We always visited her on a Sunday. I didn’t meet her husband even once. I got the impression he was very detached from his marriage. Maybe that’s an incorrect judgment. I don’t know him. But it was basically impossible for us to reach out to him because we never met him. He lived in a manner that kept him outside of the church’s influence.

I think in some ways your story shows how a faithful wife can be a redemptive/saving influence if the husband will allow her to simply coax him along.

I’d love to hear more about your experiences at the MTC. I’ve never been there (didn’t even send off any boyfriends) so I have no direct experience and RMs almost never say anything about it. Their focus is on their “best two years” rather than the prep to get there.

I’ve heard your story of inactivity and return to the church before but only second hand so it’s neat to read it from your direct experience. Having a non-believing husband of my own, it also gives me hope. I’ve just recently asked him to consider attending church again and to re-explore his faith which he has begrudgingly agreed to but I still don’t know what will come of it. Here’s hoping it’s easier for an agnostic to find the faith than an atheist.

“And I started reading. Much to my dismay, over the next few months I actually started to believe — really believe. It is the most confusing series of events in my entire life.”

DKL, is there any chance you could add a few more details about this period, as confusing as they may be. I’d be really interested to hear a bit more of what/how/why you started to believe again. Thanks for posting your story.

danithew, you’re right. I definitely blame my wife. Her and the EQ presidency at the time. And the Bishopric. Darned them all! It’s all their fault. If it weren’t for them I’d be sleeping in on Sundays and enjoying my coffee, cigarettes, and beer. Oh, well. I don’t worry about getting revenge on my wife — it’s quite enough that she has to put up with me. But I’ll get back at the others eventually!

Paroled from the Primary Presidency, I wrote a post, entitled, “Authority and the Role of Stigma in the Church” that mentioned my experience in the MTC, and I received several requests to elaborate on my MTC experience. So I added a postscript to it to lay out the story in detail. Unfortunately, the ensuing conversation centered more around the MTC than the thrust of the original post, but blog conversations go where they will. The post is available here.

gomez, thanks for asking. It’s not something that I’m terribly articulate describing. It wasn’t anything earth shattering. In fact, it was a series of events that were rather subtle. Even so, I’ll try to write something up that captures it and put it up as a post.

I think one of my favorite parts was “bewildered much of the time.”
I consider myself a thinker. I read and think about whatever I can get my hands on. I have found that the bewilderment is necessary in any religion that espouses faith as a desirable attribute. I’ve learned that if faith is something God wants for us to have, each of us will likely get to the point of bewilderment where we can say either, “I’m going to trust You on this one” or “This must all be false, because I can’t figure it out.” I’m glad we’ve chosen the former, for the latter option is appealing to so many.

I enjoyed this when I first read it at the Seawrights’ site, and I enjoyed it again just now.

“Furthermore, I’m just not a very spiritual person. I’ve felt the Sprit before, but I generally find myself at a loss when I’m in situations where other people purport to be having powerful spiritual feelings or experiences”

This describes me perfectly. And yet for so long, it was so difficult to admit this to people. It irritates me that I found it difficult for so long.

“Among the more cult-like propensities of Mormonism is its tendency to stigmatize individuals for their disbelief.”

DKL, thanks for reposting this. I have now enjoyed it twice. It does, however, make me a bit sad that LDSLF has fallen by the wayside. I enjoyed that blog very much and predicted its downfall when RT and SV were assimilated.

DKL: excellent, honest post — I wasn’t quite expecting the happy ending. :-) I actually went through a similar arc — I just became an atheist at a much younger age, then came out of it before I had ever heard much about the LDS Church (I was a lapsed Episcopalian).

Within about a five month period, I came to believe that God did indeed exist; I made a leap of faith (at the invitation of a YMCA counselor) in accepting Christ as my Savior; and a close friend invited me to church — specifically, the LDS Church. I don’t consider the timing and sequence of those events to be a coincidence; I also don’t consider the first two to be the “reason” I joined the LDS Church. Instead, I received a rather profound (if quiet) testimony of the truth of the Restoration during the missionary discussion that I (and I alone out of my whole family) subsequently took. ..bruce..

“And I started reading. Much to my dismay, over the next few months I actually started to believe — really believe. It is the most confusing series of events in my entire life.”

I, too, had a winding journey to faith. This passage describes my experience – somehow, my disbelief was replaced by faith. I can’t explain it. One day I doubted, the next I believed. However, the six year leading up to that day were pretty torturous.

Thanks for the link, DKL! I’ev got to say that some of my recent experiences in the church do mirror a little your own past experiences. I believe that most of the individuals serving in the church are trying to do their best but often we run into those who feel that doing their best also involves keeping other people “in line” with their own view of how the church should be run. As a woman, this can be particularly frustrating when you know you’re dealing with a man who has the priesthood and holds this to be more important that your own feelings, needs, or even what the church manuals say (not all do but there are those who have no qualms about this).

“many of its tenets are now among the key operational assumptions of philosophers and scientists of nearly every stripe.”

Wrong. Quine killed legal positivism over 50 years ago. Philosophers and scientists have moved on; but probably not the humanities professors at BYU, who don’t know any better.

It seems you still follow LP by accepting metaphysical claims on the basis of convention (i.e. purely pragmatical considerations). It seems you rejected the church based on the evidence you read, but came back because it felt good, so now you just don’t ask questions. Did I get that right?

First, there is no philosophical connection between legal positivism and logical positivism. Logical positivism is a school of philosophy that tries to eliminate metaphysics and replace it with epistemology and logic. Legal positivism is an approach to law that stipulates (a) the coherence theory of truth with regard to law, and (b) a legal relativism that places the meaning of each law within the legal system that it operates in. (This may not be what the text book says, because text books on legal positivism — and most legal positivists — don’t really understand the upshot of legal positivism.)

Second, one key tenet of logical positivism that is the theory of verification, which is usually attacked in straw man form by philosophers and scientists who are happy to turn around and offer objections like, “nothing could possibly count as evidence for or against that” — a verificationist statement if ever there was one. I could go on and on.

Third, Quine himself is best described as a positivist (though he was a logical positivist, not a legal positivist).

Fourth, I never met a humanities professor at BYU who knew the first thing about logical positivism. I got my degree in philosophy. The sad thing was that none of the professors at BYU knew a whole lot about positivism either, offering nothing more than the same sad, simplistic critiques that crystalized during the emergence of logical positivism in the 1920s — as though they’d studied it in an undergraduate survey course or merely overheard someone talking about it in the hall.

Fifth, scientists don’t know the first thing about philosophy of science, so it’s a category mistake to say that they’ve “moved on” from positivism, because they wouldn’t know it as a coherent body of thought if it bit them in the shorts.

Sixth, you’re wrong in your summary when you state, “you rejected the church based on the evidence you read…” It was a combination of factors that included what I’d read. As I indicate, it also included the kind of behavior among figures of church authority that create a disconnect between one’s understanding of the church and one’s experience within it. Furthermore, my narrative also implies other factors relating to my own struggle with spirituality (as such) and the absence of a core-belief.

Seventh, you’re wrong in your summary when you state, “[you] came back [to the church] because it felt good…” I came back because (a) I believe in it, and (b) it feels like the morally correct thing to do. When something feels true or feels morally correct, it is different from when it feels good.

Eighth, you’re wrong in your summary when you state “…so now you just don’t ask questions.” I do ask questions. I just have to live with the fact that I’m frequently confused by the answer (or lack of it).

The legal was a typo, sorry to confuse the issue. I meant logical, which is obvious from the rest of the post. But you just love posturing, so you couldn’t resist. Further reference to positivism means logical positivism.

I have read Quinne extensively, he was NOT a positivist. I refer you to “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” (his master work) where he completely demolishes the anti-metaphysical distinctions of the positivists. You ignorance on this subject is only out shined by your arrogance.

And thank you for extending my assumption of the philosophical ineptness of BYU humanities professors to BYU philosophy professors.

I am concerned that you, being a former self-described positivist, don’t understand the metaphysical side of positivism, which you dismissed in your rant. Take a look at the metaphysical positivism of the Vienna Circle and Ayer.

if you think that “Two Dogmas” demolishes positivism, then you either don’t understand Quine or don’t understand positivism (or — more likely — both).

Look, everyone with a dog eared copy of Word and Object thinks they’ve read Quine extensively. One clue that you’re all wet is that you refer to Ayer as though his position (early or late) was the same as that of the Vienna Circle.

But if you knew anything about positivism at all, you’d recognize that the “I believe”/”I feel” language is emotive — not metaphysical.

Look, I’m frequently wrong in a lot of areas, but Fawn Brodie and logical positivism are two topics you probably don’t want to get in an argument with me about.

Oh brother. Quine broke the distinctions between scientific and metaphysical inquiries that founded positivism. I am ASTONISHED that you are arguing otherwise. You can also be the self-proclaimed expert on unicorns, but if you’re wrong, I’m gonna point it out.

I never said Ayer was part of, agreed with, or had anything to do with the Vienna Circle, other than both discuss the metaphysics of positivism. Your argument is based on a distinction that makes no difference.

I honestly don’t think you understand much about positivism, despite your protests. Your rhetoric (emotive, as you point out) about the metaphysical is positivist rhetoric.

I have read alot of your posts about Brodie, and I think you are extremely well informed in that regard. But you are off-base here.

..”It seems you rejected the church based on the evidence you read, but came back because it felt good, so now you just don’t ask questions. Did I get that right?”..

..”Enjoy your feelings and your confusion”..

Tiredmormon I can’t quite tell by your rudeness and sarcasm whether you find it personally threatening that DKL would leave the church in the first place or whether it’s because he chose to return. Is DKL “too Mormon” for you or “not enough”?

The reason I ask this is because it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or a psychologist) to tell that your attitude doesn’t stem from DKL’s definition of logical positivism but from an insecurity with your own faith.

DKL, as an open-minded agnostic and ex-Mormon, I find your story inspiring. Keep writing! :)

I guess I should just add that there are ways to critique someone’s story (especially a very personal and spiritual one) in a way that isn’t rude and sarcastic. I really don’t see how DKL could be described as arrogant by the way he simply defended his logic after being labeled a follower of positivism who simply came back to the church because it felt good and just didn’t ask questions anymore.

For the sake of argument, assume DKL IS wrong about logical positivism. And maybe he DID come back to the church just because it feels good and now he just doesn’t ask questions so he doesn’t have to deal with any logical inconsistencies. Would that warrant rudeness and sarcasm from his fellow brethren? If that possibility upsets someone enough to be rude, I think they need to look inward and ask themselves why.

It’s my first time to this website, and I find it very ironic that I’m encouraging one Mormon to be more Christ-like to another, but I just really felt like something needed to be said, and if it has to be me, then so be it.

So in addition to amateur philosophy, we have an armchair psycologist.

Did you read any further up the comments, Emily? I told DKL in #18 that he was wrong about postivism. The ONLY reason I brought up his personal story in that comment was to demonstrate that he still follows the theory. He then went onto a typical DKL 9-page rant about all of the side issues that don’t really matter and now we are discussing the impact of a dead philosopher. My point was about positivism, not about DKL’s spirituality. After his ranting and insults (see #19), I responded with my typical sarcasm and biting remarks. As you will soon see on this site, DKL dishes it out more than anyone else, and he can take it.

I hate to disabuse you of your assumptions, but I’m not a member (and for your nosy self — I was raised in the church, did the mission and sealing, and left). I don’t “follow” Christ. I am not one of DKL’s “brethren.” I really don’t care if DKL stays in the church, leaves the church, starts his own church, becomes a polygamist, or votes for Obama.

I stop by here once in a while because DKL does make some good points, I think this site has generally well rounded and interesting people, and I have a SERIOUS CRUSH on Annegb (who is the cat’s pajamas).

Aside from that, pleasure to meet you Emily. You have found fertile ground for your penchant to judge others, whom you do not know, and give unsolicited spiritual admonishments.

tiredmormon:Quine broke the distinctions between scientific and metaphysical inquiries that founded positivism

OK. We’ll argue about positivism. But don’t say I didn’t warn you.

The distinction between scientific and metaphysical inquiries was based on the theory of verification. Quine’s attack on the analytic/synthetic distinction and reductionism constitutes a full-frontal assault on atomism and meaning determinism, both of which had already been jettisoned by other positivists for different reasons. Furthermore, both of these tenets originated outside of positivism and had many adherents outside of positivism. In other words, there is nothing essentially positivist about the analytic/synthetic distinction and reductionism. That was the point; he went after two major tenets that were common within several schools of philosophy. If his essay had simply been a critique of positivism, it wouldn’t have made nearly the splash.

Quine’s attack on reductionism impacts only the most naive formulations of the theory of verification (and Quine knew this). Early formulations (starting with “the meaning of a statement is its method of verification” and quickly moving to “a sentence is meaningful if and only if it verifiable” in response to Russell’s early criticisms) were abandoned by the Vienna positivists in the early 1930s. Generally, they adapted a more liberal position that required some degree of confirmation or disconfirmation as a necessary (and usually a sufficient) condition for meaning. For my part, I formulate the principle as follows: “A statement is meaningful if and only if evidence can be adduced for or against it.” (This is akin to Reichenbach’s probability principle, though it is stripped, of course, of his frequency interpretation of probability.) There is room to dispute what constitutes evidence for or against a statement, but there’s nothing in Quine’s system that problematizes that formulation as such.

Quine’s own positivism attempts to jettison the neo-Kantian reliance on epistemic primitives that many positivists had settled into (a la Carnap). This neo-Kantian approach broke down the basic barriers between positivism and the metaphysical philosophies that it was trying to confront. Quine’s entire program is an attempt to radically re-insert the hard-and-fast, positivist barrier between epistemology and metaphysics, and this programs begins in Two Dogmas.

In any case, I’m not sure why you’re trying to insist that I’m still a positivist. My post clearly states that I’m still a positivist. Please amend my comment #19 to include the following additional correction of your comment #18.

Ninth, you imply that I think of myself as a former positivist, when you state, “It seems you still follow LP by accepting metaphysical claims on the basis of convention.” I could not have been more clear about this in my post. In the 2nd to the last paragraph, I state, “I’m still a logical positivist.”

(This may not be what the text book says, because text books on legal positivism — and most legal positivists — don’t really understand the upshot of legal positivism.)

Um, what textbooks?

There really aren’t textbooks about legal positivism. There are some important encyclopedias. There are law review articles. And there are important book dealing with positivism, particularly books by Hart, Fuller, Coleman, Dworkin, Raz, and so on.

But there really aren’t textbooks on it. If you take a class on legal philosophy at a law school, you’re not going to study from some classroom-oriented textbook; you’re be reading The Concept of Law. (It’s not that long.)

Possibly the quote of the year here at MM. I look forward to using this against DKL with regularity.

Another HLA Hart fan! I was never able to take Philosophy of Law in law school, bummer. But, I found a copy of The Concept of Law at Sam Weller’s for $4 and was giddy for weeks. His other works are equally impressive.

DKL,

I love the break down of positivism, and the mention, although in parens about Carnape. Clean and precise. I still disagree with you about Quine’s role. There was a conference on Quine a few weeks back (100 years since his birth), with many memorable talks and essays by some very prominent philosophers. All of them cite Quine as the destructor of positivism. So who to trust? DKL or my own reading that coincides with the best philosophers in the world? Hmmmm…

And THANK YOU for getting to my main point — that you follow positivism. I missed that in your original post. It really came off (and it seems Emily understood it the same way I did) as a cheesy Ensign testimony piece — you rejected the philosophy of men and found the light.

You should start your own blog — The Positivist Mormon. IMHO, the two are irreconcilable. Although the premise is not nearly as ridiculous as ‘The Spinozist Mormon.’

What’s that scripture: “I do not know the meaning of all things, but I know that He loves His children?” or something close. I appreciate your honesty because I find the older I get the less answers I have.

But it strikes me that you were loved back into the church. I think a lot of people are “disliked” right out of the church. Or a reasonable facsimile. The bishop who presided at my sister’s funeral ran a lot of people out of the church simply by being himself LOL.

I believe many convert to a certain ward or a welcoming vibe rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ. The things we do—the way we treat each other—-matters. I wouldn’t judge anybody for becoming inactive for feeling unwelcome, although I think it’s also up to us to be friendly.

Well, I’ve argued all the way around the matter. My work here is done.

Kaimi, it’s been ages since I’ve read articles on legal positivism, so I’m at a loss to name any sources. Suffice it to say that reading lawyers’ attempts at philosophy is downright embarrassing. My reaction to lawyers who say, “such and such is the philosophical basis of this or that legal theory,” is generally, “no, it’s not.” At any rate, it strikes me as basically trivial that what you choose to argue with is the question of whether there are secondary sources for legal positivism. I take this to be a tacit admission that my characterization of legal positivism (which was totally off the top of my head) is sound.

tiredmormon, I find this to be a very odd conversation. After you claim to be astonished that I am arguing that Quine did not break the distinction “between scientific and metaphysical inquiries that founded positivism,” I respond by providing an interpretation of both “Two Dogmas” and Quine’s larger program that fits it within the historical context of positivism.

Then you respond by saying that a bunch of people at a recent conference that you attended claimed that Quine was the “destructor of positivism.” This is quite puzzling. I provide as good a 2 paragraph exposition Quine’s philosophical program as you’ll find anywhere, and you respond by making a bald appeal to authority? (and a rather lame one at that; basically, “that’s not what people said at a conference I went to.”) I thought you’d read Quine extensively. Someone as knowledgeable as you about Quine can surely cite him extensively to argue with my interpretation of his program.

If you want to be an expert on positivism, then read Quine. Read Russell (early, middle and late). Read Carnap (early and late). Read Frege (early and late). Read Bergmann. Read Ayer (early and late). Read Hochberg. Read Popper. Read Riechenbach. When you’re done, come back and we can talk about Quine’s place in the history of philosophy.

Besides, if you knew much about philosophy in the latter half of the 20th century, you’d know there are more theories about what “destroyed” positivism than there are theories of who killed JFK. The frequency with which successive new theories pop up about why positivism is now dead for good is proof that it remains important to modern thought.

tiredmormon:[this post] really came off (and it seems Emily understood it the same way I did) as a cheesy Ensign testimony piece — you rejected the philosophy of men and found the light.

I think that this statement of yours vindicates Emily’s assessment. I spend more than half of this post disparaging the religious foundation of morals and of the meaning of life. But you missed this and the part where I re-affirm that I’m a positivist. Instead, you latch onto a few sentences at the end to justify your assessment that I’m dumb and happy like you were when you were active. I hope you don’t claim to have read my writing extensively.

tiredmormon:And THANK YOU for getting to my main point — that you follow positivism. I missed that in your original post.

It is especially odd that you actually thank me for repeating the position that I’d already stated quite clearly at the outset, and that you should have actually read before venturing to lash out at my belief in Mormonism. Rather than thank me, you should be apologizing for behaving like a moron.

tiredmormon:You should start your own blog — The Positivist Mormon. IMHO, the two are irreconcilable. Although the premise is not nearly as ridiculous as ‘The Spinozist Mormon.’

First of all, I have a blog, and it’s called Mormon Mentality. Why would I want to start another blog to post articles that I should just post here anyway?

Second, don’t diss on Christian Cardall. I hold him in high regard, and not just because we worked on Banner of Heaven together.

Here is a link from the conference. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jasoncs/Quine%20at%20100.html. You can go ahead and read it and honor us with the real interpretation, tell us how dumb they all are, but I won’t be reading. Your petty and downright silly. One consistent thing about you is that you can NEVER focus on the point. You want to cherry pick side issues in sorry attempts at showing off.

Obviously we are having trouble reading each others post. GO LOOK AT MY POST. I already told you that my reading comported with what I heard at the conference. I have read and Carnape, Russell, Ayer, Frege and Quine. So again, I repeat, my reading + professionals philosophers v. DKL. Hmmmm…..

I could care less about your belief in Mormonism — didn’t you read my post to Emily? Your temple recommend status does not concern me. Besides, in a few years the novelty of going back will wear off, and you will have to do something else to keep the attention on yourself. It was your misinterpretation of positivism that spurred me to write in the first place, and not your member status.

And yes, Cardall is a moron. Spinozist Mormon has got to be the DUMBEST thing I have ever heard.

I see you joined Emily in armchair psycology … without bothering to ask questions. You can assume that I was a dumb member, without bothering to ask how many hundreds of Mormon books I have in my home library. You really don’t want to understand, you just want to play games and fuel your ego.

Yeah, your description was pretty clean, but smacks of wikipedia. The “best” I’ll find anywhere – hardly. That is the other consistent thing about you, DKL, there is no limit to your narcisism.

I’m the author of what I wrote, and nobody else. I wrote it all off the top of my head. I derived part of the paragraph on verification from something I wrote (again off the top of my head) in an argument with Nate Oman on By Common Consent. Everything else is original to this post. I’m on vacation right now, so I don’t have a lot of time online and I don’t have access to my books. Everyone reading this has access to Google. If you think there’s some source I’m copying it from, then find it and say so.

But you’re right about one thing: The paragraphs that I wrote on positivism do sound as though they were written by a very polished expert on positivism and on Quine. Thanks for noticing.

I invite you to point us to a summary of positivism that is superior to mine. Anywhere.

tiredmormon: Here is a link from the conference… I already told you that my reading comported with what I heard at the conference

Look, if you learned so damned much at that conference, then let’s hear you advance an argument and cite works of Quine. As it stands, you haven’t laid a finger on my interpretation. Even worse, you haven’t said anything to justify your earlier assertion that you’ve read Quine “extensively.”

If you can get any of your friends from the conference to enter the fray, then I’ll be happy to argue with them, too. In the meantime, I’m arguing with you.

Can you really admit that you are wrong, DKL? First paragraph says: “QUINE ENDED LEGAL POSITIVISM.” It was written by Brian Leiter, Prof at U of Texas, Chair of the Law and Philosophy Program. Whose the moron now? (I never call names on line, but you called me a moron, so I’m putting the issue out there rhetorically) This is just about as funny as your sorry primary election predictions.

I NEVER claimed to be an expert. Sure, I read alot of philosophy, but I don’t need to read the entire canon of positivism to argue with you. Requiring me to read another 100 books, won’t change the fact that you’re wrong here.

DKL, I don’t care about your status in the church. I am not bitter about my experience from attending church, I still attend, albeit rarely, my kids go to church, and still have many close, active Mormon friends. No one, except maybe my mother, would call me bitter about Mormonism. This has NOTHING to do with the church, you are confusing the issue to evoke sympathy. It has everything to do with your misreading of Quine.

Come on, DKL, you got shown up on your favorite subject. I have an article from a professional philosopher that is a smack in the face. If I were an armchair psycologist, I would say …

Hmm… I don’t think I have ever heard DKL attempt to evoke sympathy from anyone. But maybe I’m just feeling sympathetic.

annegb I’m a big fan of 1 Nephi 11: 17 because we see from the very beginning that Nephi knows he doesn’t have all the answers and it’s nice to hear that someone else is also looking for clarity.

But I would disagree that DKL was “loved back into the church” because I don’t think he was “disliked” out of the church. It seems (and I know DKL will correct me if I’m wrong) that DKL had already had questions and after a very bad experience with a leader lost faith completely. It is difficult to truly believe in an organization (religious or otherwise) if you can’t feel you sustain those who lead that organization.

annegb You said, “I wouldn’t judge anybody for becoming inactive for feeling unwelcome…” but I have to say I would and have. I get tired of people blaming their choice to be active or believe in the gospel on the members of a ward or the members of the entire church. It can be difficult if you feel the members of your ward don’t like you but the person feeling “unwelcome” has a responsibility to reach out to others around himself and make an effort.

I have had a difficult time finding a place to “belong” in my ward because though my only child is a toddler, I’m about 8-10 years older than the other women in the ward with children the same age. I live within approximately 3 miles of these women and almost never get asked to do anything with them even though I’ve invited them over for playdates and lunches. Should I claim I feel unwelcome in the ward and go inactive? If I was to do this, I would only be justified by putting the responsibility for this choice on myself, not these other women.

A very good friend of mine moved across the country and ended up getting a divorce from her husband of 12 years. She was the only single mother in her new ward and worked full time. She felt the women in her ward weren’t very nice and eventually went inactive. But she never bothered to attend a RS activity, a ward activity, tried to get her kids to Primary activities, or bothered to reach out to these people. She still blames them for her loss of activity in the church. And while I love her dearly, I think she was looking for an easy “out” for her own choices.

We have been commanded to love our neighbors but we cannot become responsible for keeping everyone around us active if we are doing our best to be kind. If my neighbor is shy and I don’t ever hear from her, is she responsible for my level of activity? I don’t think so… The church is true or it isn’t. Friends or no friends, don’t blame those around you for being an active member.

Names and threats, oh brother. Just admit you’re wrong (because you are) and you won’t have to waste a week researching a way around Leiter. Unless you can convince Prof. Leiter that he was wrong, I’m gonna take his analysis (that comports with my own reading) over your assertions anyway. And besides, he’s not unique in saying “QUINE ENDED LOGICAL POSITIVISM.”

Even if you get there, you also said in your original post that “many of its tenets are now among the key operational assumptions of philosophers and scientists of nearly every stripe” and then later you reneged and said that “[T]he frequency with which successive new theories pop up about why positivism is now dead for good is proof that it remains important to modern thought.”

So one minute positivism is “among key operational assumptions,” and the next it’s “now dead for good.” Does it go whichever way helps your current argument (like Mitt Romney’s politics)?

I’m out the door to Aspen until the 20th. Apart from another conference, the golden stoneflys and green olives are hatching … and the trout are hungry. You can pee into the wind until then. Peace.

tiredmormon, I was camping the last week, too. Just got back into internet range.

tiredmormon:Names and threats, oh brother. Just admit you’re wrong (because you are) and you won’t have to waste a week researching a way around Leiter. Unless you can convince Prof. Leiter that he was wrong, I’m gonna take his analysis (that comports with my own reading) over your assertions anyway. And besides, he’s not unique in saying “QUINE ENDED LOGICAL POSITIVISM.”

A simple methodological point: when a topic is open to argument, you can’t carry the argument by merely appealing to authority. If you find Prof. Leiter’s (or anyone’s) arguments to be so compelling, then either (a) get him to come here to argue his case, or (b) recapitulate the arguments yourself. All you’ve done in this thread is repeatedly make excuses for your inability to offer any argument at all. It’s not even logically possible to win an argument like this with a strategy like yours.

tiredmormon:Even if you get there, you also said in your original post that “many of its tenets are now among the key operational assumptions of philosophers and scientists of nearly every stripe” and then later you reneged and said that “[T]he frequency with which successive new theories pop up about why positivism is now dead for good is proof that it remains important to modern thought.”

Your current response is just as inept as your others. No sooner did I mention Logical Positivism than I described it as “a school of philosophy that has fallen into disfavor in some quasi-official sense.” (Perhaps you’ll thank me for pointing out this, too.) If you’d read my post and my comments, you’d know that I maintain that positivism has proven influential in spite of being almost universally decried.

So tell me one last thing about your seeming inability to actually read and respond to what I’ve written: Is it that you’re so anxious to lash out at Mormonism that you can’t be expected to actually read something that ends up painting Mormonism in a positive light? Or is it that you’re just a really sloppy reader in general?

tiredmormon:So one minute positivism is “among key operational assumptions,” and the next it’s “now dead for good.” Does it go whichever way helps your current argument (like Mitt Romney’s politics)?

You’ve proven to be such a poor reader that asking you to read more about positivism probably raises the bar too high. At this point, you should simply focus on reading the post that you’re pretending to respond to.

ctlewis, Christian Cardall used to have a blog called The Spinozist Mormon. It is still online here.

I was not using appeal to authority because I already stated in #23 that Quinn broke the distinctions that ended positivism, and used Leiter to back that up. And, appeal is only a logical fallacy if the authority is unnamed. Thus, no fallacy because I used a NAMED authority to support MY argument.

For the eight hundreth time, this ain’t about mormonism. This is about your misunderstanding of positivism. Do you think that everytime someone disagrees with you that they have it out for your religion? Paranoia will gel nicely with your narcissism.

DKL, all you have done on this post is blabber about positivism and provide a nice little rookie sketch. You can’t make up your mind whether it is “key” or “dead for good.” You insist I misread your post, but “Universally decried” is not the same as being “dead for good.” Nice try. You never even responded to Leiter’s arguments.

You are like a spoiled, fit-throwing toddler rolling around on the floor: you are annoying but not getting anywhere.

As usual, you’re wrong again on all counts. I haven’t accused you of making a fallacious argument about Quine. I’ve accused you of making no argument at all.

I’m sorry that it bugs you when I point out how stupid it is of you to repeatedly pretend to illuminate our readers by merely re-asserting what I say in my post as though it were news. How would you prefer I deal with such palpable instances of stupidity?

And you really should realize that commentors here are paying you a compliment by chalking up your sloppy reading to embitterment. It means that they think that you’re too smart to be this stupid about everything.

What is insipidly stupid is your refusal to admit that you are wrong. You can name call and cry and insult, but it doesn’t matter. I called you out, I backed it up, I cited Quine’s work and outlined his argument, I found professional confirmation, and you just can’t handle it. You wrote some general thesis on positivism without addressing my actual point from the beginning, that Quine ended positivism. Can you actually address the argument? Can you show who ended positivism, do you know if it is dead, do have a theory on why Quine did not end positivism, can you distinguish your positivism flip-flop that I keep asking about and you keep dodging? No, you can’t. Can you stop yackin’ about embitterment and Mormonism and all of the stupid side issues that you brought up in the first place? No, you can’t. You just sit and insult to divert the attention from your ignorance.

You quit arguing ever since I provided the article, which means that you know that you got schooled.

I have seen people agree with one thing on this thread, and that is your ego won’t allow you to be wrong. Go ahead and look back through the post, we’ve heard it more than once.

You’ve made an assertion, and I argued against it. You’ve responded by pointing to someone who agrees with you. And now you expect me to argue with him as your proxy. That’s not an argument. If it’s anything at all, it’s a tacit admission that you’re not smart enough to make the argument yourself.

At any rate, please refer to my methodological point above. It’s logically impossible for you to win this argument with your current strategy. I’ve been quite patient, offering to engage any argument you offer over the course of several days and a dozen comments. Your steadfast refusal to do anything but rail against me and point to this professor is perfectly mind boggling. The ball remains in your court. Will you or will you not offer an argument?

tiredmormon DKL told you he was out of town which is why he supposedly “quit arguing.” I happen to know he was away with his family so your assertion that he stopped posting because he “got schooled” is, at the least, incorrect.

DKL never said positivism is “dead for good.” He said “The frequency with which successive new theories pop up about why positivism is now dead for good is proof that it remains important to modern thought.” He was saying that other people are claiming positivism is dead for good and this assertion by others shows how important positivism is. I don’t claim to be a scholar but I can read. Maybe you should try it. Please go back and read what DKL has posted before continuing your diatribe here. It’s annoying.

Seems you need some help understanding the post here: I said that DKL quit arguing after the Leiter article. And he did, go read the past posts, he quits addresses positivism and starts insulting me. I never said he quit posting or wasn’t camping.

And bravo, you have found the main point of the post: Is positivism dead. Seriously, thank you. I argue it’s dead, DKL can’t seem to make up his mind. I have been waiting for some kind of answer from him but his tangents get in the way. Would you like to offer a perspective on whether positivism is dead or alive?

DKL: “many of its tenets [positivism] are now among the key operational assumptions of philosophers and scientists of nearly every stripe.”

TM: “Wrong. Quine killed legal positivism over 50 years ago.”

DKL: “Quine himself is best described as a positivist”

TM: “I have read Quinne extensively, he was NOT a positivist. I refer you to ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’ (his master work) where he completely demolishes the anti-metaphysical distinctions of the positivists.”

TM: “Quine broke the distinctions between scientific and metaphysical inquiries that founded positivism.”

DKL: “This neo-Kantian approach broke down the basic barriers between positivism and the metaphysical philosophies that it was trying to confront. Quine’s entire program is an attempt to radically re-insert the hard-and-fast, positivist barrier between epistemology and metaphysics, and this programs begins in Two Dogmas.”

TM: “I still disagree with you about Quine’s role. There was a conference on Quine a few weeks back (100 years since his birth), with many memorable talks and essays by some very prominent philosophers.”

DKL: “bald assertion of authority.”

TM: “Here is a link from the conference.”

Article by Brian Leiter: “Quine ended logical positivism.”

DKL: “Dude, I totally warned you.”

DKL: some insulting, but no arguing.

So, you claim Quine was radically re-inserting the hard-and-fast postivist barrier between epistemology and metaphysics. I say ‘Two Dogmas’ broke that distinction, forcing us to look at all manner of inquiry as scientific. Leiter agrees with me.

tiredmormon I think DKL made his point when he said that positivism “remains important to modern thought” hence, not dead. You seem to be having a difficult time grasping that concept. DKL isn’t arguing because he already made his point. What else is there to say?

I said p is DEAD, that Q killed it, I cited Q’s work where he killed it, and I found academic support.

DKL says that p LIVES, that Q did not kill it, that Q was a p, that he re-inserted the p “barrier.”

DKL needs to explain how Q reinserted the barrier, when it seems clear to me (and Prof. Leiter) that he demolished that barrier. I would like DKL to get into ‘Two Dogmas’ or Q’s other works and back up his argument that p was reinforced by Q.

Geez. Have you been paroled from primary only to be called to the nursury?

Furthermore, you have to be pretty stupid if you think that your summary makes you look good. Nothing that you’ve said in this post supports your assertion that you’ve read Quine at all, much less extensively.

In response to where we go from here, how about you offer an actual argument.

As far as calling you names, let’s get something clear: I’m not dismissing you by simply saying, “You’re an illegitimate whoremonger!” I’m classifying your behavior as stupid and idiotic. There is, in fact, stupid and idiotic behavior. Moreover, identifying stupid and idiotic behavior is not a bad thing. You keep pretending that it is.

But you’re all over the map here. Let’s take a look at the different viewpoints that you’ve tried to advance:

1. DKL is a logical positivist

You asserted this as something that we would disagree on, because you misread my post, which clearly states, “I’m still a logical positivist.” Clearly idiotic.

2. Few or none of the tenets of positivism are now among the key operational assumptions of philosophers and scientists of nearly every stripe.

You support this by claiming that positivism is dead. I countered by giving an example of a tenet that is a key operational assumption of positivism; viz., the theory of verification.

You never responded to this, and I await an argument.

I’ll add at this point that whether positivism is dead or alive is altogether irrelevant. Plato’s philosophy (in the sense that Plato actually advanced it) is also dead, yet many of its key tenets are still among the key operational assumptions of philosophers and scientists of nearly every stripe.

3. Positivism is considered to be dead by the bulk of the philosophical establishment.

You asserted this as something that we would disagree on, because you misread my post, which clearly states that logical positivism is “a school of philosophy that has fallen into disfavor in some quasi-official sense.” Clearly idiotic.

4. Quine ended positivism.

I countered this by arguing that Quine is a positivist. You responded to this by siting another paper by some philosopher from Texas. You have yet to field any argument to counter my own, and I await such an argument.

5. Quine is not a positivist.

You have yet to field any argument to support this, and I await such an argument.

6. DKL owes tiredmormon a response to the Lieter article.

I refer you to my original response to your statement about the conference you attended:

Look, if you learned so damned much at that conference, then let’s hear you advance an argument and cite works of Quine. As it stands, you haven’t laid a finger on my interpretation. Even worse, you haven’t said anything to justify your earlier assertion that you’ve read Quine “extensively.”
If you can get any of your friends from the conference to enter the fray, then I’ll be happy to argue with them, too. In the meantime, I’m arguing with you.

As Paroled from the Primary Presidency pointed out, I’m not arguing any more because I’ve already made my point and you’ve yet to field an argument to counter it.

You’ve provided a link to a paper and quoted one of its assertions. You can’t pretend that you’ve offered an argument — much less that you won the argument. Quit making excuses for your failure to field an effective argument, and just make an argument.

Quine was not a positivist BECAUSE he broke the arbitrary distinction between epis and mp, arguing that metaphysical knowledge is verifiable. That is why he killed positivism. It is as simple as that. You can read about it in his book, cited above. You can read about it in Leiter’s paper (not just “some” philosopher, check his CV), cited above. It’s not complicated.

You claim Q reinforced the barrier instead of breaking it — but DKL, you have to do more than just say it to carry the point. Tell me HOW he reinforced it, cite his works, and cite a philosopher who agrees with you. DO SOMETHING. Just blurting that out will not carry the debate, you have to back it up, and you have not.

I can’t respond until you do something with your bald assertion. Can you cover your butt here?

All you did was assert that “Two Dogmas” broke the distinction between epistemology and metaphysics. That’s not an argument. It’s an assertion. I counter your assertion with an argument, explaining how Quine’s “Two Dogmas” is not an assault on positivism, because (a) it doesn’t attack uniquely positivistic viewpoints, and (b) it takes up positions that had already been taken up by other positivists.

The distinction between scientific and metaphysical inquiries was based on the theory of verification. Quine’s attack on the analytic/synthetic distinction and reductionism constitutes a full-frontal assault on atomism and meaning determinism, both of which had already been jettisoned by other positivists for different reasons. Furthermore, both of these tenets originated outside of positivism and had many adherents outside of positivism. In other words, there is nothing essentially positivist about the analytic/synthetic distinction and reductionism. That was the point; he went after two major tenets that were common within several schools of philosophy. If his essay had simply been a critique of positivism, it wouldn’t have made nearly the splash.

Quine’s attack on reductionism impacts only the most naive formulations of the theory of verification (and Quine knew this). Early formulations (starting with “the meaning of a statement is its method of verification” and quickly moving to “a sentence is meaningful if and only if it verifiable” in response to Russell’s early criticisms) were abandoned by the Vienna positivists in the early 1930s. Generally, they adapted a more liberal position that required some degree of confirmation or disconfirmation as a necessary (and usually a sufficient) condition for meaning. For my part, I formulate the principle as follows: “A statement is meaningful if and only if evidence can be adduced for or against it.” (This is akin to Reichenbach’s probability principle, though it is stripped, of course, of his frequency interpretation of probability.) There is room to dispute what constitutes evidence for or against a statement, but there’s nothing in Quine’s system that problematizes that formulation as such.

Instead of offering a counter argument by attacking my interpretation of Quine, you name an essay by some philosopher from Texas. You haven’t cited Quine once. You haven’t even sited an essay once. You named two essays. I’m the one who cited Quine. I’m the one who actually described his approach and arguments (albeit briefly) in an essay that you do nothing more than name.

You want to make this into an exchange of authorities who agree with our positions and then pretend that it’s an argument. If you want to make it an argument, then make an argument.

Here’s what you need to do (I’ve said this so frequently that I’m frankly embarrassed for you): Take the top arguments from the Leiter essay that you find persuasive, and recapitulate them here. That will give me something to argue with. Beware: if you actually win this argument using this technique that I’ve repeatedly recommended, then you will owe me big time.

I have this problem all the time. I could take advantage of people like you and wipe the floor with them. Instead, I decide to be nice and try to help them by explaining how to actually advance a productive argument. Invariably, someone who is too stupid to formulate a reasonable argument is too stupid to appreciate the helping hand that I’m trying to give them, and they rail against me for trying to help them instead of taking advantage of their ignorance.

Lastly, I haven’t dismissed a single point that you’ve made by calling it stupid. On the contrary, I’ve concluded that you’re arguments or opinions are stupid based on analysis. So that I answer your assertions and then draw the conclusion that they are of a very low quality. You’re the one who has repeatedly dismissed my opinions without further analysis by simply name calling, so that instead of answering my points (e.g., my point-by-point refutations) you simply dismiss them with ad hominem attacks. I conclude that you’re a moron.

tiredmormon Your name seems fitting as your attempt to argue your points is extremely tired. If I was called to the nursery, at least I would be sure I know how to spell an alleged insult before slinging it (I don’t really think asking if I’m a nursery worker is much of an insult though it seems you would be offended by such a calling).

I did read the “argument” outlined above and, as DKL pointed out several times, you still haven’t put forth much more than opinions. You offer no explanation for why you believe positivism is dead other than to say Quine killed it. This is a statement, not support for your belief. And the “article” for which you provided a link provides no references for its own assertions and doesn’t even show an author. This is hardly a certifiable source.

So I’ll pose some questions for you to answer:
1) Why do you believe positivism dead?
2) Why do you assert that Quine killed positivism?
3) What other legitimate scholars in the field support your assertion? (Merely stating that “some very prominent philosophers” support your position is not adequate. If they’re prominent, who are they and where are your citations?)

I’m not a scholar in this field but if I was grading your “argument” in a college level course (the level of classes I currently teach) based on the presentation of evidence alone, you would garnish a failing grade. I honestly don’t even really care about your answers to the above questions but if you can’t answer them fully and concisely, you really don’t have much of a supportive argument.

One question I do actually care about is this: Why do you care if DKL is a logical positivist or not? It really seems to be bothering you for some unknown reason.

DKL, I dismiss your points because you can’t seem to stay on track. And where do you get off claiming you cited Quine and his work first? We have a record here you know.

DKL, your little sketch is cute, but doesn’t cut the mustard. You said Quine reinforced positivism. Your argument does not address that issue. BACK THAT STATEMENT UP. I have asked for that about 10 times now. Think you can do it?

We have both read the Leiter argument, why should I re-hash it? Go ahead and read it again and share your thoughts. I brought it up because it supported my position. If you want to critique it, be my guest.

PPP, I don’t care what DKL is or does, this is about positivism. I have seriously said that a million times.

tiredmormon:your little sketch is cute, but doesn’t cut the mustard. You said Quine reinforced positivism.

You really can’t read, can you. In my preceding comment, I stated clearly:

All you did was assert that “Two Dogmas” broke the distinction between epistemology and metaphysics… I counter your assertion with an argument, explaining how Quine’s “Two Dogmas” is not an assault on positivism, because (a) it doesn’t attack uniquely positivistic viewpoints, and (b) it takes up positions that had already been taken up by other positivists.

Then I quote my sketch that explains points (a) and (b) within the framework of Quine’s “Two Dogmas” essay. I couldn’t be more clear that this is an answer to your argument that Quine killed positivism.

My argument that Quine is a positivist is a separate argument against your assertion that Quine killed positivism. Not only have you failed to answer either of these, but you don’t seem smart enough to keep them straight.

tiredmormon:We have both read the Leiter argument, why should I re-hash it?

Somebody has to re-hash his arguments in order to frame objections to them. If you want to enter his arguments into this thread in defense of your position, then you’re the one obliged to do it. All you’ve done is point to someone else’s essay and say, “Here, answer this,” which does not demonstrate the even slightest grasp on the material. Then you beat your chest about how you can show me up, when all you’ve done is link to someone else’s essay.

I repeat: You have yet to offer a meaningful objection to my arguments. You can’t just point to other people in the hope that I can’t answer their arguments. That’s what PPP says earn you a grade of “F”. You need to say something like, “What do you make of Leiter’s argument that Quine killed positivism by doing such and such? ” Then we have something to talk about.

tiredmormon:…I have seriously said that a million times.

For someone who is so continually snide and rude and incapable of demonstrating a thorough grasp of even the simplest reading material, you sure get indignant when you feel that someone else has misread you.

Alright, I’m done. We are just going in circles. You won’t respond to Leiter and you are not addressing my question. It’s enough for me that Leiter states so clearly that Quine killed positivism. The fact that you even try asserting that Quine’s distinctions on positivism are meaningless is absurd.